Cavaliers, Anglo-Normans, and Libertas

This is some great stuff … I made similar arguments in my essay on Southern athletics, which I compared to the Olympics of Hellas and the gladiator games of Rome, and which I explicitly linked to the peculiar climate of Dixie, or the “Sunny South” which is reminiscent of Southern Europe.

In terms of political philosophy, “liberty” and “equality” and especially “republicanism” have never meant the same thing in New England and Dixie – a primordial divide that goes back to the English Civil War and beyond that to the Norman Conquest of England.

The origins of “libertas” in the Cavalier aristocracy of Tidewater Virginia:

By the early 1700s the Cavaliers and their descendants had turned Tidewater into a country gentlemen’s utopia, their manors lining the creeks and tributaries of the Chesapeake. Plantations were also taking shape on Albemarle and Pamlico sounds in the new colony of North Carolina and on the Atlantic shores of southern Delaware and the lower Delmarva peninsula.

Power in Tidewater had become hereditary. The leading families intermarried in both America and England, creating a close-linked cousinage that dominated Tidewater generally and Virginia in particular. The Virginia Royal Council served as that colony’s senate, supreme court, and executive cabinet, and it controlled the distribution of land. By 1724 every single council member was related by blood or marriage. Two generations later, on the eve of the American Revolution, every member was descended from a councilor who had served in 1660 …

This clarifies matters significantly: conservative Virginia, the Cavalier Nation, has never been a bastion of “progressivism” and other such nonsense, particularly as it relates to the “equality” of all races, and the “freedom” of homosexuals to marry each other, and the ability of public schools to “transform” negroes into White people through the alchemy of school marms, government bureaucrats, “experts,” and other government employees.

One might ask how such a tyrannical society could have produced some of the greatest champions of republicanism, such as Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and James Madison. The answer is that Tidewater’s gentry embraced classical republicanism, meaning a republic modeled after those of ancient Greece and Rome. They emulated the learned, slaveholding elite of ancient Athens, basing their enlightened political philosophies around the ancient Latin concept of libertas, or liberty.This was a fundamentally different notion from the Germanic concept of Freiheit, or freedom, which informed the political thought of Yankeedom and the Midlands. Understanding the distinction is essential to comprehending the fundamental disagreements that still plague relations between Tidewater, the Deep South, and New Spain on one hand and Yankeedom and the Midlands on the other.

For the Norse, Anglo-Saxons, Dutch, and other Germanic tribes of Northern Europe, “freedom” was a birthright of free peoples, which they considered themselves to be. Individuals might have differences in status and wealth, but all were literally “born free.” All were equal before the law and had come into the world possessing “rights” that had to be mutually respected on threat of banishment. Tribes had the right to rule themselves through assemblies like Iceland’s Althingi, recognized as the world’s oldest parliament. Until the Norman invasion of 1066, the Anglo-Saxon tribes of England had ruled themselves in this manner. After the invasion, the lords of Normandy imposed manorial feudalism on England, but they never fully did away with the “free” institutions of the Anglo-Saxons and (Gaelo-Norse) Scots, which survived in village councils, English common law, and the House of Commons. It was this tradition that the Puritans carried to Yankeedom.

The Greek and Roman political philosophy embraced by Tidewater gentry assumed the opposite: most humans were born into bondage. Liberty was something that was granted and was thus a privilege, not a right. Some people were permitted many liberties, others had very few, and many had none at all. The Roman Republic was one in which only a handful of people had the full privileges of speech (senators, magistrates), a minority had the right to vote on what their superiors had decided (citizens), and most people had no say at all (slaves). Liberties were valuable because most people did not have them and were thought meaningless without the presence of a hierarchy. For the Greeks and Romans there was no contradiction between republicanism and slavery, liberty and bondage. This was the political philosophy embraced and jealously guarded by Tidewater’s leaders, whose highborn families saw themselves as descendants not of the “common” Anglo-Saxons, but rather of their aristocratic Norman conquerers. It was a philosophical divide with racial overtones and one that would later drive America’s nations into all-out war with one another.

Tidewater’s leaders imposed libertas on their society in countless ways. They refereed to themselves as “heads” of their respective manors, dictating duties to their “hands” and other subservient appendages. Finding Jamestown and St. Mary’s City too crude, they built new government campuses in Williamburg and Annapolis from central plans inspired by Rome; Williamsburg featured a sumptuous formal “palace” for the governor (surrounded by Versailles-like formal gardens) and the elegant Capitol (not “state house”) decorated with a relief of Jupiter, the god whose temple stood at the center of Roman civic life. They named counties, cities, and colonies after their superiors: English royals (Prince George, Prince William, Princess Anne, Jamestown, Williamsburg, Annapolis, Georgetown, Virginia, Maryland) or high nobles (Albemarle, Baltimore, Beaufort, Calvert, Cecil, Cumberland, Caroline, Anne Arundel, Delaware). While they were passionate in defending their liberties, it would never have occurred to them that those liberties might be shared with their subjects. “I am an aristocrat,” Virginian John Randolph would explain decades after the American Revolution. “I love liberty; I hate equality.”

The only spot in North America more resistant than the Cavalier Nation to the bacillus of racial equality would be Charleston and its spawn in the Lower South.

30 Comments

I think political systems are a function of climate. I’ll take the Germanic “born free” idea with no slaves and no coloreds at all. Let Whites do our own stoop labor.

Thomas Jefferson, to his credit, supervised his own farm rather than delegating to a “steward” and just living off the income.

If Whites use colored slaves, then the coloreds end up outbreeding the masters and then interbreeding with them. Cheap labor ain’t cheap! The people doing the stoop labor today, will be mating with your descendants tomorrow. Let Whites do the stoop labor, and make it well paid and honorable, and for that matter, something like the production of food and tobacco should be protected from cheap imports.

How do non-aristocratic Southerners perceive the cavaliers? As someone who isn’t a Southerner, I have never understood this.

The Southern cavaliers I have met are, without exception, well-educated, sophisticated, and cultured. They are generally far more cultured than their northern counterparts, noticeably so.

Also, southern aristocrats is that they seem to have a greater sense of noblesse obliege than northern aristos. John Kerry doesn’t give a shit about working class residents of Massachusetts, and when he pretends to care he’s patronizing and condescending. The Southern aristocrats seem to genuinely care about the lower classes, and they are not condescending about it.

The ‘Aristocrats’ Hunter wants to bring back betrayed ‘their’ people and bear responsibility for the loss inflicted on the South. If they people felt responsible to anyone but themselves they would have sent the Africans back to Africa.

If the choice is between a slave society and the type of society that was created here by Reconstruction and the Civil Rights Movement, I would choose the former in a heartbeat.

This is what WNs always do: they make it out to be a choice between a perfect, flawlessly White, abstract model of a White ethnostate, OR a multiracial society based on white supremacy.

The real choice was always between a racially integrated society, a commercial society driven by materialism, with a thoroughly degenerate liberal culture based on absurd utopian ideas about race and gender, OR a multiracial society based on white supremacy.

It comes down to a choice between a place and a fantasy – and the fantasy always wins, because nothing can compete with an abstract utopia, which exists only in our own minds.

Must be nice to be born into a “cultured” family of easy going and sophisticated aristocracy. North or South the same families have controlled politics, business and media for generations. This is one of the many problems in the US right now: 99.99% of us are told we live in a “free” country when its really “liberated” (and no you aren’t one of the lucky few).

The South’s aristocracy was shattered almost 150 years ago in the turmoil between the War Between the States. Before the War Between the States, America had more capital invested in slaves than in commerce and manufacturing combined.

When you drive through Dixie in 2011, you are driving through the ruins a wrecked civilization which was based on radically different principles, which was created by a different group of people with a different purpose in mind – it is like touring the ruins of the Roman Empire.

Now, thanks to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Brown vs. Board of Education, African-Americans rule our major cities and rule the counties that has the richest agricultural land in the South.

If the South looks like a conquered nation which has been reconstructed on the basis of alien principles, the alien principles being social liberalism and free market capitalism and the sanctity of the public school and the sacrosanct principle of “democracy,” it is because that is exactly what has happened here.

It was never a Southern idea to glorify the negro and to elevate the negro to supremacy over White people because he is entitled to “human rights” or “civil rights” or bullshit of that nature – such an idea ultimately came from somewhere, and we can trace the spread of that idea through the Union Army to New England.

The system we have today is not aristocracy – we select our elites through the “meritocratic process,” or by graduating from Harvard University or Yale University with a degree in “sociology” or “cultural anthropology” or “women’s studies,” which gives you the authority to be taken seriously.

We are lorded over by a vast bureaucracy of eunuch mandarins that have centralized power in Washington, DC. They are technocrats who believe that their “knowledge” gives them the authority to manage American society as an elite.

These people hate the South, they hate conservatism, they passionately hate aristocracy, and they hate religion more than anything else – everything that is radically opposed to their own liberal or progressive worldview.

Unsurprisingly, the American elite is disproportionately composed of Ashkenazi Jews, who like this system because their “education” has allowed them to rise to the top of American society, both socially and financially.

It is a mistake though to assume that we live under a “Jewish elite” – it is a half truth. Instead, we live under a multiethnic and multicultural and multiracial elite of people who have vast fortunes, but who are not related to each other, and who have made a ton of money off some gimmick like Facebook or Twitter or who manage “hedge funds” on Wall Street or who are in the business of shipping jobs overseas.

Again, you could say that the American ruling class was created with the exact opposite of aristocracy in mind – it is cosmopolitan, not parochial, it stresses its disdain for America’s own people who are seen as “uneducated” and “bigoted,” and who need to be sent to the public school to be educated by school marms, and it rejects any notion that blood or kinship or religion has anything to do with qualifying for elite status.

Yes, we saw who the anti-Confederates fought for in the War Between the States, which is to say alongside the Union Army, side by side with black soldiers that burned down our cities in order to spread “democracy” and “progress” here.

They fought to emancipate blacks, to make them our equals, to give them the “liberty” to marry White women, to make them U.S. citizens, and they were their scalawag allies in Reconstruction, who assisted the blacks and the carpetbaggers in integrating our entire society, and putting it on the firm basis of black supremacy in states like South Carolina and Mississippi.

Needless to say, what happened after the War Between the States confirmed the direst warnings of secessionists, who had emphatically warned that the Black Republicans wanted to create an integrated, mongrelized society in the South based on the U.S. dollar, and the only solution available to the South was to create a separate republic.

As these things tend to go, the Tennessee Unionist Andrew Johnson – who saw himself as representing Appalachian Whites – became president after Lincoln was assassinated, and Johnson was stupid and naive enough to believe that after slavery had been extinguished, the conflict between Dixie and New England would go away.

Slavery was gone. Mission accomplished. The “loyal Whites” of Dixie were in the driver’s seat. Finally.

Well, it turned out that Andrew Johnson hadn’t bargained on getting impeached by the Black Republicans in Congress, and much of the Upper South hadn’t bargained on New England’s utopian vision of racial integration either, which New England was empowered to impose on the entire country through the Constitution after the CSA was defeated.

The arrogance of the Southern aristocracy led to the destruction of the South. That society was inherently unstable and doomed- it can’t be compared to Mediterranean slave society. Mediterranean slave society had social mobility, up and down- and while many slaves were foreign, not all were. The South depended on a population that was foreign, hostile, and had absolutely no hope of freedom or improved social status. The social system they were trying to replicate was very stable but it included only whites of different levels of status, not even the lowest of which was comparable to black slavery. The Cavaliers seem to have drawn a lot of their aristocratic culture from France, which fits poorly with Anglo-Saxon or Germanic culture as a whole.

The South was destroyed twice … in 1865 and 1965, by the very same people, who had the same agenda, who have a totally different view of race and culture than we do, and who are quite proud of that accomplishment today – there are monuments all across the South to those episodes, where shrines have been constructed to the martyrs of “civil rights,” and this is considered the most glorious moment of American history by Northern historians, second only to the destruction of Nazii Germany.

If the South would have been destroyed by internal sabotage, by something like a slave rebellion or a black uprising, then history would have played out differently. Instead, Northern Whites deliberately allied themselves with Southern blacks in order to jockey for electoral advantage within the Union.

Remember, it was John Brown who kickstarted the War Between the South with his raid on Harper’s Ferry. He came to the South to overthrow our civilization and to arm the slaves to kill White people and to establish an integrated “post-racial” society.

“If the Puritans had kept to themselves, their neighbors might have taken little notice of them. But what would cause Yankeedom eventually to be so loathed by the other nations was its desire – indeed, its mission – to impose its ways on everyone else. For the Puritans didn’t merely believe they were God’s chosen people, they believed God had charged each and every one of them to propagate his will on a corrupt and sinful world. All Yankee Calvinists were thought to have a “calling,” a vocation through which they would, priestlike, further God’s work. They had to be constantly vigilant in the performance of their calling, be it as a missionary, a merchant or a cobbler. Idleness was ungodly. Personal wealth was expected to be reinvested in one’s good works – professional or philanthropic – to bring the world in closer accord with the divine plan. Other societies and cultures would presumably see the “light on the hill” and wish to conform; woe be to those who did not …

From the outset, the Yankees were opposed to the very values cherished by the aristocratic society taking shape in Tidewater, including their “Norman” cultural identity. When the English Civil War broke out, hundreds of Puritans returned home to fight in Oliver Cromwell’s New Model Army, a military force founded on the radical notion that promotion should be based on proficiency rather than social status.” …

Tensions with Tidewater did not end with the English Civil War. The New Model Army’s victory (and the military dictatorship that followed) sparked the “Cavalier Exodus” to Virginia while freeing the Puritans of Massachusetts to annex their neighbors. For Tidewater gentry, New England – complicit in treasonous rebellion and the execution of the king – was a seditious land populated by radicals committed to destroying the foundations on which society stood. For Yankees, Tidewater was a bastion of reactionary forces, its lords committed to perpetuating the enslavement of the English people begun by their Norman ancestors. Their fears were given new urgency after Cromwell’s death in 1658 when in short order, the monarchy was restored and a “Cavalier Parliament” of Royalist sympathizers convened in Westminster. The gentlemen of Virginia and the Calverts of Maryland once again had the backing of London, and the Puritans faced a mortal threat to their young nation.

W do live uder a Jewish Elit. they control them oney supply. Period. Their helots and minions, of all Races, have various levels of “authority” to “make decisions” – but it all revolves around what’s best for the Money Masters .

It’s all crashing down, of course. It’s a sick dysfunctional system, no matter the Race serving as Golem. Jews NEVER learned how to run their own funcitonal social order. Their entire ideology/belief system/philosophy is about parasitism – no matter what they tell themselves, or any-one else. I think loads of Jews believe their own BS, fyi.

The essential problem with any slave system is that the slaves eventually overthrow their masters. The Aristos use slaves, ultimately, becvuase they don’t want to soil thier hands. The Southern Cavalier Slave system would have fallen WITHOUT any Yankee/Northern aggression. Come on Hunter – you should know this. Slave systems ALWAYS collapse. The mere proximity of Northern “Free States” would have undone the structural components of the Southern slave system, alone. People talk to each other; Black slaves would have heard about the Promised Lad in the North. They DID. That, and the North focused on industrial development. Jobs. Money. Woo hoo!

The real tragedy of the Civil War was that the South kept all the Nigras. Yankees got to congratulate themselves, for their deluded vanity aka “moral superiority”, they developed thier various industries, and “grew wealth”, and never had to actually deal with Negroes on a day to day basis. The South remained largely agrarian, lost their wealth, cause now the slaves were “free” – and thus had to suppor all the free-ranging Darkies. The South should have sent all the freed Darkies North. “Here. You want ’em – you take ’em”.

That would have created a VERY different result, and history. Speaking as a Yankee – my single biggest frustration is other White Yankees. Negro penetration of Northern White populations is still mininal, although ZOG is sending Negroes into small White towns,now. It’s still going to take YEARS for all the vain, fatuous, “tolerant” I Am NOT a Racist Whites I know (Liberal or Conservative means nothing here) to comprehend that Races are very very very different – if they ever do. Northern Whites, I fear, will be simply overwhelmed – cause THEY DON’T CARE ABOUT RACE – and go to Oblivion readily. Clutching their toys.

The planter aristocracy deserved to be destroyed, for betraying their White peasants by using slave labor. Yankees wrote about the poverty they saw among Whites, the rundown barns and houses and fences, the ragged clothing, the illiteracy. Some wrote that the Southerners were just lazy, but the more perceptive understood that being in competition with slaves made poverty inevitable. Just as today, businessmen betray us by hiring foreigners or outsourcing to China. We’re in competition with the Third World now, and we’ll soon be in the same situation as the poor Whites of the South.

Denise, Puritan Calvinism is a reinterpretation of Christianity to make it more like rabbinical Judaism- a text-based religion for an urban commercial class. For Puritans and their descendants, Jews are their model, which accounts for the affection.

For an earlier example of slavery blowing up a republic, see the story of Tiberius Gracchus.

‘For the Norse, Anglo-Saxons, Dutch, and other Germanic tribes of Northern Europe, “freedom” was a birthright of free peoples, which they considered themselves to be. Individuals might have differences in status and wealth, but all were literally “born free.” All were equal before the law and had come into the world possessing “rights” that had to be mutually respected on threat of banishment. Tribes had the right to rule themselves through assemblies like Iceland’s Althingi, recognized as the world’s oldest parliament. Until the Norman invasion of 1066, the Anglo-Saxon tribes of England had ruled themselves in this manner. After the invasion, the lords of Normandy imposed manorial feudalism on England, but they never fully did away with the “free” institutions of the Anglo-Saxons and (Gaelo-Norse) Scots, which survived in village councils, English common law, and the House of Commons. It was this tradition that the Puritans carried to Yankeedom.”

Then one of the foundational elements in the Yankee vs. Cavalier mentality, is that the Yankee is more Anglo-Saxon, and therefore, Orthodox, while the Cavalier is more Norman, and therefore, Papist. This philosophical tradition is directly tied to the filioque, and the schism of 1054, and the attendant rise of the Papacy as the anti-Church, while Orthodoxy (even kept alive in some parts of England until Cranmer’s time) was the Church of the Apostles, and her concept of liberty is the more correct one- except that it had been divorced from the Biblical construct that the NATION of Israel was ‘free,’ while the ‘pagan nations’ around were not, even if those ‘freed men’ were laborers, and farmers, and common men. Because Israelites were Adam’s seed, [Gen. 3:15] and the non-Elect were not, [Amos 3:2] all of Adam’s seed were ‘royal’, even if they were only ‘common men and women.’

However, the Elect of God are never common. The Papal view, OTOH, sought to define everything via hubris and ‘royal blood’ (tied to the Papacy, which, for a time, under the Borgias, has relations in almost every royal house of Europe) which was part of the reason the Scots-Irish to this day, find the English (Normans) insufferable prigs; for as every Celt knows, ALL are ‘royalty’ in that older “Anglo-Saxon” mindset.
This is the legacy of the filioque, and the ‘second Europe’ thinking that she is the “First Europe,” gentlemen.

Denise has the right of it, Hunter. Getting into Harvard, fetching coffee for traders until running a large fund makes one rich, not elite. Intelligent dentist Jews may be wealthy but not elite. The eunuchs are not elite. They are bureaucrats executing someone else’s agenda.

Your true elite are those that control our government, large institutions and political discourse (media). Its the original FED member banks. The car companies constantly getting injections of tax payer money or credit. Its the owners of media conglomerates that dictate the discussion. They are mostly old Jew family lines (lookup the 12 original fed member banks and what those bank names used to be and where they came from).

This is the Bilderburger/illuminati/mason/CFR/trilateral commission/whatever conspiracy theory source. The same names keep showing up if one digs into who owns what decade after decade. This is in no way meritocratic. Meritocracy, capitalism and creative destruction only apply to us little people who get to think we have control of our own lives, that our votes matter and so forth. When one considers that many peoples’ ideas are more mold-able than play-dough with applied scientific principles of propaganda, there really is no choice.

If this country was meritocratic, if there was really free choice, would the south have been reconquered in the 1960s? Of course not, too many morons were programmed like good little goyem…er…robots. I just don’t believe that so many many of the smartest and highest achieving could disbelieve their eyes about the muti-culti nonsense at once.

It looks to me like the Jews clawed their way up the social and economic ladder in the Northern states from the 1920s to the 1970s. They became increasingly influential within the Democratic Party in that time period.

The story of how the Jews took over Columbia University (this was the home turf of Franz Boas) is well known. In later years, their numbers soared at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, but not before the Yankee Protestants attempted to limit their numbers through character tests to prevent them from ruining their treasured universities.

After WW2, “anti-Semitism” was discredited by American war rhetoric against Nazi Germany, and the barriers that had limited Jewish numbers in the Ivy League were removed and the “meritocratic” system was put in place.

The story of Jewish involvement in the Federal Reserve is one piece of the puzzle. The story of how Jews created Hollywood is another piece of the puzzle. The story of Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs is another piece of the puzzle. The story of the New York Times is another still.

From a Yankee perspective, it must look like the Jews were hijacking all their institutions and pushing them aside. There was a lot of truth to this. The Jews quarreled with Madison Grant and Henry Ford and Henry Adams despised them.

There is a grain of truth to the WN account of the Jews. It is not the whole story though.

The whole story would ask challenging questions such as …

(1) Why were the Jews allowed to settle in the North in the first place?

(2) Why was the North so uniquely vulnerable to Jewish infiltration?

(3) Why was there so little resistance in the North to the Jewish takeover?

(4) Just how exactly did the Jews rise to power in the North?

It is worth noting that WNs assume that there is a “White America.”

In reality, there were hardly any Jews in Dixie before the air conditioner allowed the Jewish snowbirds of New York and New Jersey to move to South Florida, and the Jews who had traditionally lived here were Sephardic Jews who had been here for centuries, and who had never been perceived as a major threat to Dixie’s racial caste system.

Dixie was nothing like Yankeeland in the 1960s … it was as different from the North as Quebec was from English Canada, an agricultural backwater with its own racial caste system, which did not exist in the Northern states.

Why did the South have to be reconquered in the 1960s? Simply because its conquerers did not physically live here and were unable to nationalize their racial consensus without another confrontation with the South.

(1) The Jews established their beachhead in New York City which was explicitly founded by the Dutch as a commercially oriented, cosmopolitan city state like Amsterdam.

(2) The Jews had already settled in the Netherlands en masse after getting kicked out of Spain, Portugal, England and other European countries.

(3) The Quakers founded Pennsylvania and their contribution to the entity that later became known as the United States was its tradition of “religious tolerance” which was extended to the Jews.

(3) Yankee culture had always attached enormous importance to education. Unlike Southern culture, Yankee culture has always revered government and intellectuals, and it was also stridently egalitarian and ideological.

(4) Yankee culture is about being a “city on a hill.” This is similar to the Jewish idea of being a “light unto the nations” or “healing the world.”

(5) “The North” was founded by the Quakers in Pennsylvania, the Dutch in New York, and the Yankees in Massachusetts – collectively, these three groups created a free labor capitalist society, one that despised aristocracy, one that was commercially oriented and egalitarian, one that became increasingly tolerant of religious, racial, and ethnic diversity over time.

In so many words, “the North” was based on a model that was always seriously flawed and which was extremely vulnerable to hijacking. It created a culture that allowed the Jews and their allies to retain power once they acquired it.

Hunter- in your laying out reasons for Jewish incursions into the North, may I point out the leaving of the Covenant by the first generations and their Clearly-applied Calvinism; whether English Congregationalist, Dutch Reformed, or Scots-Irish Presbyterian?

The ‘halfway covenant’ is well known. What is also well-known, but not BEmoaned, is the eventual ‘morphing’ of Calvinism (divorced from its ethnobiological roots) into Unitarianism, which is but a short step away from Talmudic Judaism. One thinks (for a most egregious example) of Caroline Kennedy SCHLOSSBERG, which (in older days) would have resulted in her immediate excommunication. Today, the Yid is just (according to Rome’s bizarre theological turnings in the wind) an ‘elder brother’ scenario. Of course, no one mentions ‘What fellowiship hath Christ, with Belial?’

Christian Universalists would argue that the main purpose of Jesus Christ coming to this world was to proclaim and reveal a God who loves all people with a parental love, who will never give up on any soul, and who has a plan for the reconciliation of all things

No one ever realy believed we were equal. Northern industrialist needed cheep english speaking labor and slaves headed north fit the bill. The Germanic’/ Viking traditions forbade intermarage due to racial impurity and imposed serfdom on most of the population. The Franks, Vikings, Saxons and Normans all imposed themselves as a seperate class above the native Celts of western europe and established the royal lines and nobility. The clasical world did on ocasion offer citizenship to those that earned it. Befor the constitution and magna carta, only Deuteronomy established equal protection of the law. The early protestants of new england sighted the old testament almost constantly in their writings. The largly secular southernors did not in the early days. You would be hard pressed to find references to germanic tradition in period text. You could link the prodestant north Germanic traditions however, the bible is more likley. The clasical connection may work for Louisiana or florida but the English ran states like Verginia, or largly German Texas? The theory falls apart there

No one ever realy believed we were equal. Northern industrialist needed cheep english speaking labor and slaves headed north fit the bill. The Germanic’/ Viking traditions forbade intermarage due to racial impurity and imposed serfdom on most of the population. The Franks, Vikings, Saxons and Normans all imposed themselves as a seperate class above the native Celts of western europe and established the royal lines and nobility. The clasical world did on ocasion offer citizenship to those that earned it. Befor the constitution and magna carta, only Deuteronomy established equal protection of the law. The early protestants of new england sighted the old testament almost constantly in their writings. The largly secular southernors did not in the early days. You would be hard pressed to find references to germanic tradition in period text. You could link the prodestant north Germanic traditions however, the bible is more likley. The clasical connection may work for Louisiana or florida but the English ran states like Verginia, or largly German Texas? The theory falls apart there

I’m uruguayan, and i grew up in a mainly latin culture, my father was from the USA, and his mother (my grandmother) was a deep southerner, our family is pretty big and united in common blood, but my grandfather was a northerner, he descended from anglo-scots methodists of mainly gaelo-norse origin and also from anglosaxons. I never related so much with his origins, it’s a pretty disconnected family, and i don’t think that refers to a “racial” reason, it’s more like the consequences of moving west i think… I never thought of that culture until i read this post, it’s like i’m in the two civilizations, i’m pretty a anglo-saxon norse actually

“For the Norse, Anglo-Saxons, Dutch, and other Germanic tribes of Northern Europe, “freedom” was a birthright of free peoples, which they considered themselves to be. Individuals might have differences in status and wealth, but all were literally “born free.” All were equal before the law and had come into the world possessing “rights” that had to be mutually respected on threat of banishment. Tribes had the right to rule themselves through assemblies like Iceland’s Althingi, recognized as the world’s oldest parliament. Until the Norman invasion of 1066, the Anglo-Saxon tribes of England had ruled themselves in this manner. After the invasion, the lords of Normandy imposed manorial feudalism on England, but they never fully did away with the “free” institutions of the Anglo-Saxons and (Gaelo-Norse) Scots, which survived in village councils, English common law, and the House of Commons.”